Have you performed simple arithmetic operations like 0.1 + 0.2? You might have gotten something strange: 0.1 + 0.2 = 0.30000000000000004.

  • toasteecup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Python has no issues representing

    1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3

    as 1. I just opened a python interpreter, imported absolutely no libraries and typed

    1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 enter and got 1 as the result. Seems like if python could do that, JavaScript should be able to as well.

      • toasteecup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I’ll pass on the js interpreter. I don’t feel like learning the arcane runes.

        To your point, Python handles those by giving you 0.300000004 might have missed a zero but valid point nonetheless

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I thought it was a rather simple analogue, but I guess it was too complicated for some?

      I said nothing about JavaScript or Python or any other language with my 1/3 example. I wasn’t even talking about binary. It was an example of something that might be problematic if you added numbers in an imprecise way in decimal, the same way binary floating point fails to accurately represent 1/10 + 1/5 from the OP.

      • ericjmorey@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Perhaps the following rewording of your last sentence would be easier for readers to follow along:

        With a lack of precision, 1/3 might become 0.33333333. When evaluating the expression 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3, using 0.33333333 as an approximate representation of 1/3 will return a result of 0.99999999, instead of the correct answer of 1.

    • aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      That’s because the nearest representable float to 0.99999999999999 is 1.0 - not because Python is handling rationals correctly.

      This is a float imprecision issue that just happens to work out in this case.

      It’s worth wondering why, if Python is OK with “/“ producing a result of a different type than its arguments, don’t they implement a ratio type. e.g. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/Groups/AI/html/cltl/clm/node18.html#SECTION00612000000000000000